Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Blog

It's Not Gridlock That is Blocking a Carbon Tax, It's Science and Economics

This is an open letter to William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman. You, the former directors of the EPA who were appointed by Republican presidents, recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled, A Republican Case for Climate Action. In this opinion piece, the four of you write of your conviction that action can no longer be delayed on the climate, and that the only reason we don't have a chance to pass a carbon tax is because of partisan gridlock. With all due respect to your years of service to our nation, I wish to remind you all of one inconvenient truth: you are political appointees. You are experts in neither science nor economics - your only expertise is in the political arena.

Your opinions, therefore, are formed neither in a scientific nor an economic framework. Let me be blunt: not one of you has ever actually pursued any rigorous scientific or economic course of academic study. Your educational backgrounds are wholly unrelated to the relevant fields when discussing climate science and carbon taxing schemes.

In your NYT op-ed, you write,

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.

Given your lack of background in the rigors of scientific study, it is inconceivable that the four of you can claim any knowledge of what debate exists in the scientific community. There is strong evidence that the warming trend to which you refer either has stopped or was, at least in part, manufactured by prominent scientists who earn enormous federal grants to come up with data supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Your claims that sea levels are rising and Arctic sea ice is "melting years faster than projected" are so full of holes that it causes one to wonder if you've ever read a peer-reviewed scientific study. And calling a new tax on energy a "market-based approach" ignores the enormous effects on our economy such a scheme would cause.

Conservatives do not oppose carbon taxes because they are anti-science or do not care about the environment. Quite the contrary, in fact. Conservatives oppose carbon taxes for two very strong reasons that you would do well not to dismiss so blithely:

1. Any carbon tax would have a far-reaching and compounding negative impact on our economy, and is regressive in nature - carbon taxes disproportionately hurt the poor in a wide variety of ways; and2. The science, despite what Al Gore may have told you, is far from conclusive. Consensus is irrelevant to the scientific process. The scientific process, when properly utilized, fits a theory to the facts as observed - NOT the other way around.

In closing, you all would do well to listen to all the voices in your party, as well as all the voices in the fields of science and economics, before casting judgment on Conservatives who oppose such an economically inhumane policy.

"There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts..."

There is plenty of scientific debate about the basic facts. There's little debate that the earth warmed over that last 30 years of the 20th century, but how much of that was due to man's activity, what will be the effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and whether costly mitigation efforts or adaptation (or some combination) is the best policy, are very much in debate. It's disingenuous to assert that the least important part of the theory - past temperature trends - garner broad agreement and use that to imply the most controversial and parts do as well. There's very little evidence that the predictions about future temperatures will be accurate, and what little historical record has been produced since they were made indicates they've over estimated climate sensitivity to CO2.

“They took our jobs!!!” This is the mantra that the creators of South Park have so endearingly given to middle class America. However, despite their malicious intent, they may have stumbled across something. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the new economic data for the month of June and the http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-08/u-s-payroll

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, seems to be a new American energy solution, or problem, depending on one’s view. Various parties, from environmentalists to businesses are heralding natural gas as the answer to our national energy crisis. Proper fracking harvests large quantities of natural gas safely and at a reasonable cost.

President Obama, speaking at a Chrysler plant in Toledo, attempted to highlight the successes of his bailout bonanza of the American auto-industry. “This plant directly supports hundreds of jobs right here in Toledo. After all, without you, who’d eat at Chet’s or Inky’s or Rudy’s?” A few days later Chet’s closed up shop and went of business. Ouch. Presumably, the president would surmise that the diner’s demise was a “bump in the road” on the way to recovery.

America’s wild wild west has always been home to cowboys, adventurers, hardened frontiersmen, and red-blooded, independent Americans. In the face of excessive government regulation, Texans have revived their independent streak and passed HR 2510. The bill returns commonsense to the world of light bulbs, despite establishment opposition.

“Winning the Future,” is one of the newest slogans from our campaigner in chief. Obama whips this slogan out when he talks about increasing funding or “investing” for education. However, it appears that the future is failing Obama. With time technology constantly advances and evolves but it appears the future is the source Obama’s economic woes. http://nation

On June 8, 2011 the Senate committee on environment and public works held a joint hearing titled, “Air Quality and Children’s Health.” Senator Thomas Carper opened the hearing by declaring his grave concern for the health of America’s children, “As a parent, I’ve spent a lot of time worrying about my own children’s health. As a U.S.

“Keynesians of the world unite” should have been the slogan for the meeting held on Tuesday between President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama knowing full well that the economy is not doing well has decided to pin the blame on what he calls foreign headwinds. These foreign headwinds Obama is referring to is the current economic situation of G

Click to listen!
I sit down with FreedomWorks Chief Economist Dr. Wayne Brough to discuss the upcoming EPA "Regulatory Trainwreck" - so called because there are so many regulations in it that they can't even sum it up with any other word.
The Executive Branch was unable to pass cap and trade, and has instead given power to regulatory agencies, devoid of congressional oversight, in order to skirt accountability and push their agenda.

America is feeling the pinch on our energy supply; from expensive water bills to cringe-worthy prices at the gas pump. That pinch may well be turned into a crushing squeeze, due to the Obama administration’s increased restrictions on oil importation, its moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling, and a host of strict regulations on energy companies.